Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EFF Believes Search and Seizure of Gizmodo Editor's Computers Was Illegal
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Buying a phone for 5000$ is not buying a story. Buying a story is paying Chen to fly to that guy and talk to founder about the phone and posting that information. Using the money to buy the product that's clearly lost isn't legal, breaking apart the product to post that information online isn't legal. It doesn't matter that Gizmodo already returned the iPhone, they already broke those laws, returning the laws does not excuse them.
I stole a million dollars from a bank, but I returned it the next day. Does that excuse me from robbery? No.
Gawker/Gizmodo did not just return the iPhone, they broke it apart and post the protected IPs on the internet for everybody to see. They were all in rights until they did that. They did not have the right to take apart a lost item or something that does not belong to them.
If Gawker found a lost mail in the hallway where I live, does it excuse them from the laws by opening my mail and putting it back and giving it back to me?
I say Apple should sue the hell out of Gizmodo. They handled the whole situation poorly and arrogantly. I wouldn't care if that site ceased to exist.
That may be true, but what does that have to do with Gizmodo? They simply believed that the guy made his attempt to return the device.
The investigation should be into the seller of the phone, if that person is known, for selling apple's property illegally. The government cannot raid a journalists home to identify a source.
What would be interesting would be the CA aiding and embedding laws that
may or may not be applicable.
People who compare cars to phones should not be allowed to have keys to cars! LOL
Don't you just love these half-cocked apples to oranges comparisons.
"HE STOLE A QUARTER, LET'S HANG HIM!" LMAO
It's been pointed out here several times that knowingly buying stolen property (and what else did Gizmodo think it was?) is also illegal, so Gizmodo made themselves part of this when they bought it. If they had simply gotten information from this guy without paying for it (i.e., photos, description, etc.) they would have been 100% in the clear.
And how many times has MacRumors gotten "insider" information that would be considered trade secrets.
I guess the police shouldraid Arn's house next.
hickman
I found it absolutely laughable to see people here actually question Gizmodo as a "journalistic website"
Are you serious?
Also, I shall remind people that Gizmodo had several attempts to return the phone to Apple and now had done so after Apple confirmed it was indeed theirs. To put it in an extreme, Gizmodo actually rescued an prototype and returned it to its rightful owner. I don't see Gizmodo asking for 5000 dollars back from Apple, Just fire the guy who lost the phone and move on. People!
Are you serious?
Also, I shall remind people that Gizmodo had several attempts to return the phone to Apple and now had done so after Apple confirmed it was indeed theirs. To put it in an extreme, Gizmodo actually rescued an prototype and returned it to its rightful owner. I don't see Gizmodo asking for 5000 dollars back from Apple, Just fire the guy who lost the phone and move on. People!
That's a sound business model. Too bad it only works for items that people are really interested in and you have the exclusive story. Great for unreleased intellectual property I guess. I'm thinking movie scripts, book drafts, recording studio tapes...
actually, you could "borrow" (pay someone to steal steal, then return) stuff, think of it like public spying.
How do you think we know the effort of the seller did to return the phone? Gizmodo published it. They knew the exact effort the seller did to return the phone. As I posted already in two threads, that wasn't enough or the appropriate place to call to clear the seller of his/her legal obligation to try to return the phone to the owner. Which then Gizmodo knew the phone wasn't the sellers right to sell which then they knew they bought stolen property.
Ignorance isn't a defense. Gizmodo/Gawker had to call Apple for permission to post the information about the iPhone, they didn't. They don't have ownership of the item that was clearly illegal in the first place. The CA laws stated three years must pass before ownership can be applied to the lost items.
The government wasn't raiding a journalist to identify a source, the government was raiding a journalist to identify whether the journalist was attempting to commit a felony. Huge difference.
Clearly I don't have much experience with warrants being issued for my home or my property
So it's perfectly normal to knock someone's door down to execute a search warrant. All the police have to do is make sure the resident isn't home. How tough is that in this era of GPS enabled phones?
I still feel it is an inappropriate use of force. Was there imminent danger that the police were under, or was there imminent danger of losing whatever data it is they were searching for?
While there was no harm to people, the property damage is real. Let me guess, it's the responsibility of the property owner to repair the damage even if the accused is found not guilty?
Yes it is perfectly normal for a warrant to be executed anyway if the person isn't home, there's no requirement that warrants can only be executed if a resident is not home if there's an imminent loss of evidence and no, the police pay for damages. Chen's own account states how he was given the procedure to file for a reimbursement.
And no, you obviously don't know search and seizure procedures. You seem to want to believe that it is wrong or unusual but the simple fact is, there's nothing out of ordinary here. And besides, he got home before it was finished anyway so he was present through much of the search.
They purchased the phone. They paid $5000 and received the phone. If they paid $5000 and purchased the story, the "finder" would still have the phone. Do you see how that works?
The finder new the name of the Apple engineer (from the Facebook app in the new OS) and didn't contact him by phone, email, facebook, or by stopping by the Apple campus, which was 20 minutes away.
Gizmodo allegedly received the phone bricked, which means they would've had to be told the name of the Apple engineer rather than discovering it on their own. Which means they purchased the phone knowing who the true owner was.
And, to top it all off, everything we know about this from the "finder", which may be lies or half-truths. The engineer has made no public statement, so the "finder" could be a mugger or a burglar or a pickpocket for all we know.
And how many times has MacRumors gotten "insider" information that would be considered trade secrets.
I guess the police shouldraid Arn's house next.
hickman
There is a difference between posting speculation and rumors of details of Apple's next products. It's another to actually buy the prototype from a seller that had no right to sell it and then take it apart and post the actual details for everyone else to see.
EFF should know better than to equate information with stolen property.
Err, I hate to break it to you but they are not. They are a half-assed tech blog, nothing more.
Nevertheless, that is irrelevant to this case.
Err, I hate to break it to you but they are not. They are a half-assed tech blog, nothing more.
Nevertheless, that is irrelevant to this case.
If this ever comes to trial, it'll be interesting to see how Apple makes a case that they were harmed by the disclosure. I suppose they could claim that sales of current iPhone models declined because buyers decided to wait for the new version, but the release isn't that far off. Plus, given Apple's track record over the past couple of years, at least some people would have held off anyway. Apple would also have to show that the leak gave their competitors an unfair advantage. I suspect that opposing attorneys might even posit that this gives Apple a leg up by keeping the new iPhone buzz even higher than it would be otherwise.
Really? Why don't you explain the justifications for where they show the inside of the iPhone? They had no rights to break apart the iPhone that wasn't theirs in the first place and post that information to everybody. That's still illegal, no matter how much Gizmodo or Gawker want to say it's "journalism".
Who are the criminals?
Peter Tosh, Equal Rights:
Everyone is talking about crime
Tell me who are the criminals
I said everybody's talking about crime, crime
Tell me who, who are the criminals
I really don't see them
So... maybe the tables will be turned on the cops... maybe they are the criminals...
Peter Tosh, Equal Rights:
Everyone is talking about crime
Tell me who are the criminals
I said everybody's talking about crime, crime
Tell me who, who are the criminals
I really don't see them
So... maybe the tables will be turned on the cops... maybe they are the criminals...
BTW, regardless of whether or not Gizmodo knew it was stolen, there are two basic rules any journalist will tell you about this kind of situation. 1) Avoid impropriety and, 2) avoid the appearance of impropriety. No matter what defense you have of Gizmodo buying the phone, they clearly violated rule 2. In their rush to get the big scoop, they ignored the basic journalistic principles they now claim protects them from being investigated, and instead behaved like giddy schoolchildren grabbing for candy being dangled over their heads.
Either way, whether they knew the phone was stolen property or not, their behavior is indefensible from a journalistic perspective.
Either way, whether they knew the phone was stolen property or not, their behavior is indefensible from a journalistic perspective.